Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 338
  1. #76
    Orange is the new Putin wgscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    12,386
    Blog Entries
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag View Post
    I think it's immature to complain about one forum on another forum.
    Cry me a river of hydrogen audio-troll anonymous cowardly postings and sniveling self-rightous indignation.
    Last edited by wgscott; 09-11-2014 at 01:24 AM.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide
    Where we should go. We just ride.

  2. #77
    Masters Level Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,192
    Blog Entries
    13
    I would consider myself objectivist, but instead of trying to disprove my own subjective observations I try to find ways to figure out objective methods that correlate with those subjective observations.

    If I find that flowers smell better than shit, I don't immediately go and say that there cannot be a difference if both release same amount of molecules. And that the topic cannot be discussed because it has not been scientifically shown that flower molecules would be technically better than shit molecules.

    If we would always stick to what has already been proven and is status quo, nothing would ever progress.
    Signalyst - http://www.signalyst.com
    Developer of HQPlayer

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Miska View Post
    I would consider myself objectivist, but instead of trying to disprove my own subjective observations I try to find ways to figure out objective methods that correlate with those subjective observations.

    If I find that flowers smell better than shit, I don't immediately go and say that there cannot be a difference if both release same amount of molecules.
    To ask for 'objective' support in the form of results from double blind listening tests seems pretty sensible to me, certainly for extraordinary claims like bit-identical files sounding different from each other. Personally, I know from experience that I can't trust my hearing in a sighted setting when I have knowledge about what I'm listening to and/or what I should be hearing. I'd be more than a little surprised if that wasn't true for others as well.

    Last edited by Bystander; 09-11-2014 at 08:34 AM.

  4. #79
    Masters Level Member sandyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    8,337
    To ask for 'objective' support in the form of results from double blind listening tests seems pretty sensible to me, certainly for extraordinary claims like bit-identical files sounding different from each other. Personally, I know from experience that I can't trust my hearing in a sighted setting when I have knowledge about what I'm listening to and what I should be hearing. I'd be more than a little surprised if that wasn't true for others as well.
    6 separate Blind A/B/A 3 minute sessions were performed in this area by Chartered E.E. and technical journalist Martin Colloms, and results published in HiFi Critic Vol.6 No.1.

  5. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Miska View Post
    I would consider myself objectivist, but instead of trying to disprove my own subjective observations I try to find ways to figure out objective methods that correlate with those subjective observations.

    If I find that flowers smell better than shit, I don't immediately go and say that there cannot be a difference if both release same amount of molecules. And that the topic cannot be discussed because it has not been scientifically shown that flower molecules would be technically better than shit molecules.

    If we would always stick to what has already been proven and is status quo, nothing would ever progress.
    A fly will enjoy more the smell of shit than flower and bee the opposite,who is right?



  6. #81
    Señor Member Jud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Born in Bethlehem (PA)
    Posts
    13,730
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Bystander View Post
    To ask for 'objective' support in the form of results from double blind listening tests seems pretty sensible to me, certainly for extraordinary claims like bit-identical files sounding different from each other.
    One problem is that HA is fairly religious about A/B/X testing (and rarely "double blind" - I've seen people using that phrase who evidently don't know what it means), to the exclusion of other objective testing protocols that are perfectly acceptable in both the "hard" and "soft" sciences. There's no scientific reason to limit what one considers evidence exclusively to two testing protocols (single or double blind A/B/X).

    (This is totally leaving aside what Miska mentioned with regard to subjective experience making him curious about whether there might be something objective behind it. I see nothing wrong with that. Nor do I see any scientific reason to think that what we know now about audio reproduction and human hearing is all we will know, forever and ever amen, but now we're getting even further afield.)

    Personally, I know from experience that I can't trust my hearing in a sighted setting when I have knowledge about what I'm listening to and/or what I should be hearing. I'd be more than a little surprised if that wasn't true for others as well.
    Absolutely, I think we've all got to allow that our senses are fallible. That shouldn't absolutely foreclose our inquiring into what we believe we are hearing and why, it's just that we've always got to be ready for the possibility that "I was fooled" or "I imagined it" may be the correct answer.
    The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein
    One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

    MacBook Pro, A+ -> 2 Mapleshade Clearlink USB Plus flanking Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> iFi micro-iDSD -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

  7. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
    Some time ago I came to the conclusion that any DAC that is audibly affected by upstream or external perturbations is defective. All the evidence I have seen, such as that which you just gave, supports this. I have a choice between buying a DAC which is unaffected, or trying to fix all the external influences. I enjoy tinkering and tweaking as much as anyone, but my primary goal is to listen to music.
    Well said.
    JRiver Media Center / jriver.com

  8. #83
    Señor Member Jud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Born in Bethlehem (PA)
    Posts
    13,730
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by jriver View Post
    Well said.
    Eagerly awaiting the list of non-defective DACs.
    The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein
    One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

    MacBook Pro, A+ -> 2 Mapleshade Clearlink USB Plus flanking Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> iFi micro-iDSD -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

  9. #84
    Masters Level Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,192
    Blog Entries
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by alfe View Post
    A fly will enjoy more the smell of shit than flower and bee the opposite,who is right?
    Nobody, but at least you know preferences of your target group and how to get there in a systematic way instead of trial and error.
    Signalyst - http://www.signalyst.com
    Developer of HQPlayer

  10. #85
    Masters Level Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,192
    Blog Entries
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Bystander View Post
    To ask for 'objective' support in the form of results from double blind listening tests seems pretty sensible to me, certainly for extraordinary claims like bit-identical files sounding different from each other.
    It is not efficient way, I rather use MOS/MUSHRA/PEAQ -type methods (yeah, I have strong background in telecomms).

    There are multiple good documents about how to properly conduct listening tests if you want to go that way, but these are good starting point:
    https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3286.pdf
    https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_274-hoeg.pdf

    But without much effort I can think of number of reasons why bit-identical files could sound different. It doesn't even need much effort to measure that same file played twice through same hardware results in different analog output every time. There are multiple time-varying interference and noise factors in analog and mixed-signal environments always, and sample clocks belong to that category too. Since we don't feed the bits directly to our brains in digital format, keeping inspection purely in digital domain is completely useless.

    I'm mostly interested about correlation between these factors and listening experiences, instead of questioning existence of those factors.
    Signalyst - http://www.signalyst.com
    Developer of HQPlayer

  11. #86
    Orange is the new Putin wgscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    12,386
    Blog Entries
    50
    OK, but in Bystander's case we are talking about "extraordinary claims like bit-identical files sounding different from each other." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (to paraphrase Carl Sagan).

    Normally, if you wanted to check to see if two files were bit-identical, you would check the md5sum of each, and if they matched, you would be done. No need for a double-blind test or anything else. (The clinically paranoid might opt for a sha1 hash of each as well, but it is basically the same idea.)

    Now we have the claim that two bit-identical files, with all else being equal, can sound different. Personally, I think this suggestion is implausible to the point of being insane, but if we want to test the claim, how can we do it? Implicitly, we are rejecting things like checksum hashes, so all we are left with is people's impressions of how they sound. A properly-conducted double-blind test is the only way you can evaluate such a claim.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide
    Where we should go. We just ride.

  12. #87
    Masters Level Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,192
    Blog Entries
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by wgscott View Post
    OK, but in Bystander's case we are talking about "extraordinary claims like bit-identical files sounding different from each other." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (to paraphrase Carl Sagan).

    Normally, if you wanted to check to see if two files were bit-identical, you would check the md5sum of each, and if they matched, you would be done. No need for a double-blind test or anything else. (The clinically paranoid might opt for a sha1 hash of each as well, but it is basically the same idea.)
    This is going a bit OT from the players sound different -subject.

    Problem with the hash test method in this case is that it tests only the files, not the entire playback. So it tells nothing about playback.

    Now we have the claim that two bit-identical files, with all else being equal, can sound different. Personally, I think this suggestion is implausible to the point of being insane, but if we want to test the claim, how can we do it? Implicitly, we are rejecting things like checksum hashes, so all we are left with is people's impressions of how they sound. A properly-conducted double-blind test is the only way you can evaluate such a claim.
    As a starting point you'll at least need to measure the playback from analog domain. For example playback from RAM disk vs HDD vs SSD may have vastly different EMI/RFI signature. Even two files from the same HDD may result in different signature if the other one is more fragmented than the other, and the reading head servos are quite powerful.

    No, I'm not saying I'd be hearing differences with my hardware and software, but that probably doesn't mean anything to anybody else.
    Signalyst - http://www.signalyst.com
    Developer of HQPlayer

  13. #88
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by Jud View Post
    Eagerly awaiting the list of non-defective DACs.
    Feel free to suggest one. I didn't even suggest or imply that I'd provide a list.

  14. #89
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by Miska View Post
    This is going a bit OT from the players sound different -subject.

    Problem with the hash test method in this case is that it tests only the files, not the entire playback. So it tells nothing about playback. ...
    As others have said, "identical" files can produce different analogue outputs for all sorts of reasons. My original point was that if the (sum of the) differences are large enough to be audible, the DAC can be considered to be defective / poorly designed and implemented.

  15. #90
    Freshman Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
    Feel free to suggest one. I didn't even suggest or imply that I'd provide a list.
    With all due respect


    Quote Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
    Some time ago I came to the conclusion that any DAC that is audibly affected by upstream or external perturbations is defective. All the evidence I have seen, such as that which you just gave, supports this. I have a choice between buying a DAC which is unaffected, or trying to fix all the external influences. I enjoy tinkering and tweaking as much as anyone, but my primary goal is to listen to music.
    Strongly implies that you know of one or more such DACs in which case it's disingenuous not to identify them.

    A

  16. #91
    Masters Level Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,192
    Blog Entries
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
    As others have said, "identical" files can produce different analogue outputs for all sorts of reasons. My original point was that if the (sum of the) differences are large enough to be audible, the DAC can be considered to be defective / poorly designed and implemented.
    Now you can turn this from subjective to objective by obtaining bunch of DACs and measuring their output in different configurations. I've been doing that, while my primary focus is still on inspecting effectiveness of my DSP algorithms in real world situations.
    Signalyst - http://www.signalyst.com
    Developer of HQPlayer

  17. #92
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by Miska View Post
    ... I'm mostly interested about correlation between these factors and listening experiences, instead of questioning existence of those factors.
    Yes. Hear a difference, find out why. Fix it. For example, bit identical files might sound different. If the system were perfect, you know they wouldn't. Where we differ is in the fix. For example, a DAC might be susceptible to jitter in the incoming bitstream. Some might work to fix the causes of the jitter. Others might work to fix the DAC's susceptibility to jitter. I happen to be in the latter group.

  18. #93
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by the_bat View Post
    ... Strongly implies that you know of one or more such DACs in which case it's disingenuous not to identify them. ...
    I already said, I did not intend to even imply such a thing. I do have a personal list, but it's my opinion and would likely be vociferously debated if I did post it. We're far enough OT already.

  19. #94
    Senior Member gmgraves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sparks. NV
    Posts
    4,121
    Quote Originally Posted by spdif-usb View Post
    You mean... like most of the people who love Apple products? :grin:

    That makes a lot of sense.... NOT!
    George

  20. #95
    Masters Level Member sandyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    8,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
    I already said, I did not intend to even imply such a thing. I do have a personal list, but it's my opinion and would likely be vociferously debated if I did post it. We're far enough OT already.
    Don
    Feel free to start a new thread. (grin)


  21. #96
    Masters Level Member sandyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    8,337
    Miska
    Please check your PMs
    Alex
    "If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD,
    you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco"

  22. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag View Post
    I think it's immature to complain about one forum on another forum.
    You do, do you? And how does that make you feel?

  23. #98
    vinyl nerd spdif-usb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    room 641A
    Posts
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by gmgraves2@comcast.net View Post
    That makes a lot of sense.... NOT!
    hehe
    If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work.

  24. #99
    vinyl nerd spdif-usb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    room 641A
    Posts
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by jriver View Post
    Well said.
    I have said it several times in the past on here. Not very many people listened.
    If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work.

  25. #100
    vinyl nerd spdif-usb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    room 641A
    Posts
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by alfe View Post
    A fly will enjoy more the smell of shit than flower and bee the opposite,who is right?
    Seeing as so many people on here still think 16/44.1 sounds awesome, probably the fly must be right. ;-P
    If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast